Honestly, I don't think they'll matter much unless someone other than Clinton can leave her in the dust. As long as she stays within shouting distance her gigantic edge in superdelegates will push her over the top.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote

Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Quote

From my rotting body, flowers will grow and I am in them and that is eternity.

Here's a question. If Sanders and Trump both lose their nominations but decide to run in the main election, how do you think this would affect the main election? Who would a 4-way election help or hurt the most?

Logged

Whenever I hear a politician speaking strongly for or against abortion, all I hear is, "I have no idea how to fix the economy!"

Here's a question. If Sanders and Trump both lose their nominations but decide to run in the main election, how do you think this would affect the main election? Who would a 4-way election help or hurt the most?

The Republican nominee. If there are four candidates, all of whom could get a reasonable degree of support, there's a decent chance that the election would go to Congress, at which point the President would be elected by the House (voting by states), and the Vice-President by the Senate. The Senate is up for grabs in this case, really, since while the Republicans have 54 to the Democratic Party's 46, they also have 24 Senators up for re-election to the Democrats' 10. But the House is gerrymanded all to hell, and by the current configuration, the Republicans have outright majorities in thirty-three states. I don't think it's likely that either of the candidates not nominated by one of the two parties would be seriously considered by Congress, and so in this event I think the Republican nominee for President would ultimately win.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote

Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Quote

From my rotting body, flowers will grow and I am in them and that is eternity.

At this point, if the Democratic Party wants their Queen in Hillary, they can have her, but I bet we will see a continuous decline in party membership, because people are just sick of the Democratic Party giving us neo-liberal trash in return. This election so far has seen how much they don't want any part of any kind of challenge to the anointed one. I know I'll be changing my party affiliation, was considering it before Bernie decided to run, because I've had it with the party at this point, they've proven that they have no respect for anyone who is the wee bit left of the Clintons.

pyro

At this point, if the Democratic Party wants their Queen in Hillary, they can have her, but I bet we will see a continuous decline in party membership, because people are just sick of the Democratic Party giving us neo-liberal trash in return. This election so far has seen how much they don't want any part of any kind of challenge to the anointed one. I know I'll be changing my party affiliation, was considering it before Bernie decided to run, because I've had it with the party at this point, they've proven that they have no respect for anyone who is the wee bit left of the Clintons.

You mean what I'll be changing my party affiliation to?? If that's what you're asking, I was thinking of just registering as "non-affiliated" which is an option in my state. The last couple election's I've been voting third party, given my overall disgust at what the Democratic party has become, I mean it's pretty sad when you have so called liberals defend the for-profit healthcare system, because they want to bitch about an added tax, when in reality it's actually cheaper than what we currently have.

pyro

You mean what I'll be changing my party affiliation to?? If that's what you're asking, I was thinking of just registering as "non-affiliated" which is an option in my state. The last couple election's I've been voting third party, given my overall disgust at what the Democratic party has become, I mean it's pretty sad when you have so called liberals defend the for-profit healthcare system, because they want to bitch about an added tax, when in reality it's actually cheaper than what we currently have.

I see. Oddly, I was planning to change from "non-affiliate" to "registered Democrat." There's pretty much only one palatable choice during the general election (I'm ignoring the third parties because first-past-the-post election system), whereas if I was voting in the Democratic primaries I could choose between more than one non-demented choice. Not to mention, since there are fewer people who vote in the primaries, my vote literally carries more influence.

There's pretty much only one palatable choice during the general election (I'm ignoring the third parties because first-past-the-post election system)

See, this is why Democrats take the progressive vote for granted. The left wing in this country isn't willing to take a stand and vote for the best candidate among all parties running. Progressives are a large enough constituency that, if they jump ship in an organized way, they can guarantee unelectability for any Democrat. That's how you frighten the leadership and push political discussion to the left.

It does involve at least the willingness to bite the bullet and endure four years of Trump or worse, but I don't think the long-term prospect of Democrats becoming even more right-wing is any better. It just happens more slowly.

Logged

Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Ibbles, I am going to start with this. Who the hell do you think you are lighting a fuse and dropping a pipebomb on me? Here I am thinking that you and I are friends and we can talk about these things like sensible adults, as I’ve been trying to do throughout any Democratic primary discussion, and there you go lighting fuses. You can light off a fuse on any other of these posters, but not me. So, because of that, I’m going to say what needs to be said, because you’re my friend and you deserve to hear it.

Now, before I begin, I should address the alcohol consumption. There are a few things at play, but I am fine. First, I’m in VA doing nothing for break. I have some work that I took down here, but it’s not important. I’ve mentioned previously that when I am on break, I just cut back and throw caution into the wind. I’m also on a new medication which reduces my tolerance, so I get drunk a little faster and it is taking some getting used to. But, I would like to thank you for your concern, even though it is misplaced as I’ll be sober and miserable tomorrow when I return to Ohio.

And, to clarify, I did not mentioned my drunkenness to say “OMG, I messed up, totes sorry.” I do not regret making that post in WSJ that utilized the Chewbacca defense. I think it was funny: the post was nothing but over the top and silly. I mentioned that I was drunk to highlight just how not-serious that post was, specifically for those who are lacking the ability to spot sarcasm. If there was any serious portion of that post, then I would’ve waited until sober to post it (as I did here). Again, thank you for your concern, but it is misplaced.

Now, Ironbite, I say this as your friend, but you’re acting like you’re in a fucking cult. Nicki is not acting much better. Fact of the matter is, ever since Bernie announced that he sought the office of the presidency, his campaign has been mired by its cult like supporters and their bullshit accusations of bias. Literally, just about everyone has been accused: the media, the pundits, the pollsters, Hillary, the debate moderators, and even the DNC. I’m not going to get too in depth with these accusations, but I will go through them individually and chronologically.

The first accusation of bias was born almost immediately after Bernie began his campaign. Senator Sanders traveled the country drawing hugecrowds. The problem with this accusation of bias is that the media did the same thing to Ron Paul in 2008. And again in 2012. So, I’m not convinced by this accusation.

While the supposed media “blackout," a conspiracy that Bernie Sanders fanned the flames of , depressed the following, the cult took solace in the fact that the media could not ignore Bernie on the debate stage, and at that moment, media or not, America would “Feel the Bern.” Memes supporting this idea spread like wildfire that come the debate, America would see Bernie, and would like what they saw. Pundits in Bernie’s camp took it to the extreme, saying that before the debate had happened, Bernie already won. So, according to this site, Bernie could get on stage, “get schwifty,” and leave with a win. To take a quote from Ironbite, many of these supporters believed that rational people could only support Bernie, and when the nation was exposed, they would follow suit. However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience.

Then the debate happened, and it changed a lot. The pundits watching the debate declared Hillary the winner: she spoke well, get her neglected campaign back on track, reached out to various blocs of the democratic party, attacked the GOP, and even pandered to republican voters. Bernie had a decent introduction to the American audience, but didn’t quite do as much as Hillary. The cult of Bernie, not content that their guy could lose a debate to “the anointed one,” viscerally disagreed, pointing to the most unreliable of sources, online polls. Convinced that there was a conspiracy, Bernie supports accused the pundits of being bribed by the Hillary campaign and of lying to skew the narrative towards Hillary. The confirmation bias is strong with these people. The fatal flaw of this argument is that every scientifically conducted poll found that Hillary won the debate, I believe the closest was by 17 percentage points and the most extreme was just shy of 40, vindicating the pundits.

After that, the next accusation was that the DNC was trying to skew the election toward Hillary by limiting the number of debates to six. There are several flaws with this argument. First, just because the DNC planned six debates does not mean that the DNC is bound to hosting six debates. In 2008, the DNC only scheduled six debates as well. When all was said and done, the DNC hosted 25 debates!. So, if Bernie wanted more debates, he should show up and make this an actual race. If he does, then like Obama in 2008, he will get more debates. The second flaw with this is that even if limiting the debates to six was part of a DNC plan to sabotage Bernie, Bernie has not made the most of the debates (actually taking a hit in the polls after each), and therefore I am inclined to treat this as nothing more than a harmless error. The third fatal flaw in this argument is, as noted by progressive and Hillary super delegate Howard Dean,

Quote from: Howard Dean

I don't think the books were cooked and if they were, they were cooked pretty badly because Hillary Clinton is a very good debater. After each debate she gets a bump. If [the six debate schedule] was a strategy to help Hillary Clinton, I don't think it has.

And I think Howard Dean hit the nail on the head. Hillary is a good debater, honed through 25 rounds with Obama in 2008. If the DNC wanted to skew the primary process towards her, then hosting more debates would be a better plan. Finally, Bernie is only asking for more debates due to the conventional wisdom that, as the underdog, more debates would benefit him vis-à-vis Clinton. However, and I will concede that there are conflicting reports, when O’Malley challenged Sanders to a one-on-one debate, Sanders declined. While Bernie denies this, knowing that I do about the two, I am inclined to believe O’Malley, and therefore, I just see the attempt by Bernie’s campaign to get more debates as nothing more than a desperate attempt at catching up in the polls and not as part of a plan to allow Americans to make the most informed choice.

Then, the penultimate conspiracy theory that I heard was that the database scheme was part of a conspiracy to throw the wheels of the Bernie Bus. The problem that I have with this is, again, multifaceted, albeit Davedan said it better than I could,

Quote

Sanders email scandal really did seem like a big deal to me. They accessed another candidates information and got caught. They didn't get caught running innocent searches either. They were using the information so that they could best undermine Hillary's campaign and promote their own. Now because of the nature of this they got a very unfair headstart. How do you punish them? You lock them out of the system. It seems to me both Hillary and Bernie played this well. Sanders didn't scream conspiracy. He got rid of the people who did it and apologised, Hillary accepted and moved on. As for the DNC, I don't see what else they could do. Now if Hillary gets caught doing the same thing and then doesn't get punished that will be the time to cry conspiracy.

The only two things I have problem with is that, first, Bernie did not cry conspiracy. But, as seen in the Ed interview I posted above and from his website, Bernie has no problem fanning the flames of these accusations of bias. Second, while there is no second instance by which to draw a disparate treatment of Bernie, there is some evidence to the contrary. To put it in context, Ironbite stated earlier,

Quote

She was Clinton's 2008 campaign chair for fuck's sake. Look me in the eye and tell me that the Dems aren't dirty dealing this as to apologize for letting a black man take what was supposed to be her seat away from her.

The problem with this is in 2008, the DNC acted in a similarly heavy-handed way to punish Michigan for holding it’s primaries out of order (I believe between Iowa and New Hampshire). The DNC punished Michigan by taking away all its delegates. About 85% of Michigan’s vote went to Hillary. If the dems wanted Hillary to beat Obama, they could’ve easily allowed Michigan to count in full initially. The DNC did go back and allow Michigan with reduced delegates and some apportioned to Obama. My point being, if you really believe that the dems are sabotaging Bernie to apologize for 2008, and that the DNC acting so heavy-handed in response to the database scandal, then there are a few anomalies to such a plot.

Further complicating the assessment is, as you and Nicki said, "the clear conflict of interest." The problem here is that the assessment is terribly incorrect. First, as in the case I quoted at Paragon regarding gamergate, the conflict of interest would be ameliorated through disclosure. The DNC knew Schultz' past work with Hillary. So, at this point, Schultz did not act on her own via the disclosure (everyone know). So, if there was a conspiracy, against Bernie, at this point, it is not purely on Schultz, but instead on the DNC as an entity, which just adds another layer of complication to the the conspiracy theory. Further, in this theory is no acknowledgement of the fact that within a day, the right to access the database was restored by the DNC. There are a lot of anomalies to this theory undermining its veracity.

Furthermore, the whole plot makes no sense. Why on Earth would the DNC attempt to sabotage Bernie's campaign when Hillary leads him by about 25% in national polls, is up in Iowa, neck and neck in New Hampshire, and slotted to win big in South Carolina? Why would the DNC need to help Hillary when her debates do a good enough job of that? So, not are there serious anomalies with this theory, but there is not a need for the DNC (as an establishment) to take the steps that you ascribe to them.

And finally, Daveden ninja’d me, but the theory that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is pressuring super delegates to break for Hillary. If you really believe this, then I don’t know what to say. There are 800 super delegates. Do you really believe that a conspiracy of 800 could go on without coming to surface? Of course not. Nor has any of the delegates that side with Sanders reported any such pressuring. Further, the worst part about all of this is that I have stated several times that there was a similar early break (albeit nowhere near as pronounced) in 2008. If Bernie wins a few primaries, then some super delegates will switch sides, and unannounced delegates will side with him.

And to add to what Davedan said about both Hillary and Bernie being more than qualified leaders, the one thing he forgot is the Supreme Court. Both Hillary and Bernie will appoint similar justices. Hot button issues like Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion and contraception, and campaign finance reform are all products of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, and the appointment of 1 or 2 justices (and the next president may appoint as many as 3) could sway the Supreme Court for the next thirty years and decide these issues favorably or unfavorably towards us. This notion that Hillary is a republican in disguise is incredibly naïve and needs to end. She is without a doubt more conservative than Bernie, but Republican, no.

Which brings me to a last subject of note: I enjoy Bernie. I really do. I’ve said before that I think his contribution to American politics is greater than just being president: he is changing the way we talk about socialism. I enjoy this because I think that things like universal health care, high taxes on the wealthy, a living wage, a strong social safety net, paid family leave, highly subsidized education, and Keynesian economics are great things that we as a nation should take more seriously. I really like that Bernie is dispelling a lot of the negative stereotypes that have surrounded the word “socialism” for the last 70 years. But the important thing to remember is that the democratic party is more diverse than just our section of the internet. FQA is largely white, young, progressive/socialist, and active on the internet. All of these are categories that Bernie is popular in. There are more groups than just ours, and it is important to remember that there are single-issue voters, moderate democrats, working class democrats, Hispanic and African-American democrats, and older democrats. In particular, I try to highlight that each of these groups have an opinion of progressives and socialists, and the reaction of the cult of Bernie affect those perceptions. As an identified socialist well before Bernie was cool, I do not want moderate democrats conflating socialism with the paranoid conspiracy theories of the cult of Bernie. I do not want black democrats conflating young, white socialists at a Bernie rally in Seattle shouting “All lives matter” and racial epithets at Black Live Matter protestors with myself.* In sum, I like that Bernie is erasing negative connotations surrounding socialism. However, as a socialist, I don’t want my political identity to be hijacked by conspiracy theorists and assholes.

And in conclusion, there is no conspiracy, and if there is, the burden of proving it has not been met. Nothing at this point is official, so there is no reason to get worked up. If Bernie wins Iowa, New Hampshire, limits his loss in South Carolina, and does well at Super Tuesday, then he's probably going to be the democratic nominee for president. Polls are not static and they can change. However, if Hillary wins Iowa, and most states on Super Tuesday, I doubt that her win will be that different from what the scientifically conducted polls say. All I'm trying to ask is how far down this rabbit hole of conspiracy theories are we going to go? If Hillary wins Iowa by a vote of 59-41 (which is similar to most recent poll), then are we going to blame the DNC for lying about results, the polls for giving false reports to derail Sanders' support, Hillary's campaign for bribing people? I really just want to know when this will all end.

*My view on this is that Bernie acted 100% in the right. That view got drowned out in any discussion here. However, a friend of mine was there, and her first-hand account is that she contributed to shouting “All lives matter.”

Even if Hillary becomes the Prez, it would be a lot better than "PRESIDENT TRUMP"! I'd rather have a ho-hum Democrat over a GOPer of any stripe, any day!

In the Primaries, I'm voting Bernie. However, if Bernie loses the Primary and out of the race, I'll vote Hillary. I'm not giving up on the elections because that would give the GOPers victory and THAT would be HELL!

Look; I'm as frustrated as you. I'd love to see an election FULL of Bernies! I'd love to see a massive Left-turn in our politics and the USA to be a big giant Norway! But that won't happen if we sabotage ourselves by being "candidate perfectionists" or eschew voting all together.

Voter-apathy got us in this mess! If the vast majority of Americans voted in every election for candidates who weren't wingnuts for the past 30-40 years, we wouldn't be in this mess! Sometimes you need to take baby-steps in the ideal isn't available. Over time, the political landscape will improve.

Vote for Bernie...but if Bernie doesn't win the Primary, vote for Hillary! She's far from perfect but she's a HELL of a lot better than all those GOP bozos!